The Guardian's take on the "victims" of 1956
Am I the only person who found this an odd angle for the Guardian to go into such detail on in its coverage of the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the Soviets?
Reams of coverage of how Hungary caused some (but not all) British Communists to wake up and realise they had been supporting a mass-murdering tyranny and that Stalin hadn't been a nice man at all. And this made some of them upset.
A) There were plenty of people who didn't need to see Hungarian democrats being crushed by Russian tanks to know that Communism was evil and the USSR and its satellites were prison states - remember 1956 was 35 years after the "Red Terror", nearly 20 years after the Show Trials and disappearances to the Gulag and 10 years after the overthrow of the democratic coalition governments that briefly existed in some of Eastern Europe after WW2.
B) The British apologists for Stalinism were not innocent victims of it, by willfully ignoring the truth about the USSR they helped sustain it. All they suffered was losing their secular "religion" and falling out with people who stayed in the CP.
C) Was a split in a party that never elected more than 2 MPs really of great historical significance?
D) How parochial is it possible to get? British newspaper reports anniversary of critical event in another country's history by remembering its impact on internal dynamics of very minor UK political party.